Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
|
If you included the next paragraph, haven't read that article in a while, but it does however say much more than that. The article itself hinges on the arguments made further down. The primary being a disgrace to mathematics. The sources, and wait for it, you are gonna love it, use the fact that the Iranian election doesn't work.
lmao. So yeah, this "fact check" determined the Benfords Law to be inaccurate citing the disparity in the Iranian election. I think that should be further proof, what's it gonna say next, that Benford's Law is invalid because it doesn't work in China or Russia either, Lol.
However, the core of the argument is correct. The Law doesn't prove Fraud, and if you go back to the comment that I was defending, I wasn't trying to prove beyond doubt that fraud happened. In response to the comment I was saying there should be some actual hearings, election reform, I actually really liked the idea proposed by Cruz to have an election commitee on how to fix this problem and increase faith in the American election. Whether you look at the data or not, nearly half, 39% of the US believes the election was unfair.
The article you used says that it is a red flag. And that's what the post I was defending commented, and Benford's law does essentially scream out that there should be some looking into this election.
In short, on that specific law, it can only ever be used to spot fraud, never to prove, and it does not explain anything about it. Even if the results were clearly fabricated in the analysis of the Law it would not be enough to overturn an election, it is simply a probability.
After the Benfords Law maths came out briefly after the election, that is when other people on either side started to say one of two things:
1. It doesn't apply to elections, which is wrong;
2. It proves fraud and Joe Biden cheated, which is wrong.
The statistics I have done include looking at the data from the election come from looking at the actual standard deviations of voter turnout and voter disparity. There is little point going into it though, for reasons I have already stated. The trump legal team released their numbers, on the standard deviation of similar things and we do not have identical numbers. So, to add to the comment above that posted a few links, I haven't just found these answers online and are trying to argue for them. It is my own math using the data available from the SOS pages. I haven't watched them, but I doubt they are on the work I did a couple months ago.
So I will try and make it clear, the math is only going to give you a probability of a fair election. In order to actually do anything, there is going to have to proof. I have my own theories, and I do believe that the numbers support it, but that is all it is. My own theory based on numbers.
I consider this a pretty reasonable response.
Admittimably, I did not do Benford's law myself, I heard a couple of reports and that is when it peaked my interest. I thought that all claims of voter fraud were speculation until some of the maths started to come out, which in turn encouraged me to do my own.